Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 18 January 20 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. I will draftify the article till more reviews come in and articles are made (non-admin closure) •Cyberwolf•talk? 00:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Beach VelocityOne Pro Race[edit]

Turtle Beach VelocityOne Pro Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future product without the requisite coverage outside of re-packaged announcements and other Churnalism. Suggest a move to draft space or redirect to Turtle_Beach_Corporation#Products_and_brands until such time as sourcing exists. PROD was contested, so we're here. Star Mississippi 23:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Diamond Creek Township, Chase County, Kansas. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elk, Kansas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elk, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first nomination really didn't go anywhere near the problem: there's no evidence this was ever anything but a post office that was put out of business by RFD. It's not even clear that the location given is where the post office was, since it's unlikely to have been in a cemetery. Most of the sources are old maps which are used to justify statements that they cannot support. I also had to prune out a great deal of padding in the form of a historical snapshot of the state. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia of Kansas [1] on page 572 describes Elk as "a country post office with one general store in Chase county" having a population of 45. Jbt89 (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
references
  • "Diamond Creek". Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World. J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1880.
  • Valens, Frankie (2011). "The Community of Elk". Chasing an Illusive Dream. AuthorHouse. pp. 559–565. ISBN 9781467036368.
  • KEEP, don't merge into a township article in Chase county, because the community sat directly on the county line betwen Marion and Chase Counties. There is 2 pages about the former community of Elk on pages 319 to 321 of the "Marion County Kansas : Past and Present" published in 1972. Chase County side was post office, house, ice house; Marion County side was woodman hall, cremery, shop, house, lime kilm, there was a building with a 500 pound grinding stone to grind wheat, and a large windmill next to it to power the grinding stone. I shouldn't have to remind all of you, that all historical documentation isn't on the internet, and just because you can't find information on the internet doesn't automatically mean a community didn't exist. 21:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm always impressed by how some people can take the most banal non notable facts and describe them like they are the most awesome thing ever. That aside the local papers do not give any significant coverage of the place. Additionally, nobody said the place didn't exist and existence ≠ standalone Wikipedia article. Stand alone articles need to meet the notability guidelines, and this one doesn't.James.folsom (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Ghost towns can be notable, as I have argued here for years, but this I think is not. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep snarky comments to yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.1.101 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories (++): (+)}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Complex/Rational 02:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Peter Kirby[edit]

David Peter Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author failing GNG. Can find no significant coverage of this individual; at most he is mentioned in book reviews. The article relies on a basic directory entry and a vague link to the entire University of Leicester website because some of his books are there. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails general notability Mr Vili talk 00:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that there are more than 3 NBOOK passes here but I have seen enough to be very comfortable with NAUTHOR. Kirby appears to have been a prolific and respected historian. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, when I went to de-orphan the article, I also found that Wikipedia name-checks D. P. Kirby 94 times in articles... I know that's not an official notability criteria or anything but reinforces my sense that his writing has been influential and wiki readers will find it useful to have an article about him (hopefully, a more thorough one eventually). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a stub which needs expansion, but it is about a respected historian of Early Medieval Britain and it is well referenced. I have two of his books and cite them in articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above, subject meets NAUTHOR. ResonantDistortion 14:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a professor in a UK university, he should be notable without more. He is (or was) certainly a significant scholar in his field. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an author who has written many books, he is surely notable. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above meets NAUTHOR.Tame Rhino (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Redirect to chip butty would be inapt as that article focuses on and is titled after a Commonwealth/UK-specific sandwich. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patso[edit]

Patso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources and unlikely to be any. The single citation appears to be from a Turkish blog post from 2016. Cabrils (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NOTDICT Mr Vili talk 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chip butty. A quick search returns some news articles and passing mentions in some books but nothing in-depth that would justify a standalone article. It seems to be identical to chip butty. Aintabli (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 12:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bu (instrument)[edit]

Bu (instrument) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources/anyone talking about it. Heyandwhoa (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose [10] in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, [11], [12], [13] toobigtokale (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toobigtokale: Can these sources perhaps be added to the article, with the points of information that they present? BD2412 T 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally try to prioritize time by prominence as there's so many under-reported Korea topics, and I think this instrument is obscure. I can add a bit from one source if that helps toobigtokale (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done toobigtokale (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per improvements to the article and sources identified by toobigtokale. BD2412 T 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Traditional Korean musical instruments#Clay instruments (properly sourced content) where it has an existing entry. If the subject grows into an stand alone article the history will be preserved, but there is not enough properly sourced content to merit a stand alone article. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  05:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still looking through Korean-language sources, but if it were to be merged, wouldn't Fou (instrument) be a better candidate to be merged to? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also merge with Onggi, since that's the pot that is being repurposed here as an instrument. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why merge, if there are sources to support a separate article on the instrument as an instrument? BD2412 T 17:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think merging to Fou is the most plausible, although I think a merge isn't needed because it has separate notability in its usage in specifically Korean Confucian rituals, as well as its notability in Korean-lang sources. toobigtokale (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's clear from the sources above (one being an encyclopedia article) that the topic is notable and could merit a standalone article. Debates about where to merge the content (if desired) could continue after the AfD. (Personally, I think Traditional Korean musical instruments would be the best place, but I'm not opposed to maintaining this stub.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, continuing the discussion on whether this should be a standalone article or merged with a target article (and there are several suggestions here)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's a bit more here than there is for most isntruments in the article on Korean musical instruments. Cortador (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see unanimity among those relying on policies and guidelines. Additional relists seem to garner no new opinions. Owen× ☎ 15:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Ibru[edit]

Emmanuel Ibru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessperson who doesn't satisfy any of WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPENDENT, or WP:SECONDARY. Article relies largely on materials that are either primary or unreliable. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every material cited in this article are all from reliable/independent news/media houses in Nigeria/Africa.
You need to point out to us which of the information contained herein is not from a reliable source.
Regards. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources primarily include passing mentions. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. There are atleast five sources on that article that talked about the subject particularly.
    Biography pages have been created here with less. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay Kenechukwu, could you please perform WP:THREE? TLA (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Materials cited are from reliable source Dahunsitemitope (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: this is very likely a WP:SPA. TLA (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm tla That's obvious now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There's a draft at Draft:Emmanuel Ibru which couldn't survive any AfC review before it was created by the author directly on mainspace, abandoning the draft. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]
A different editor created that. Reach out to the editor. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If I missed something, post the best WP:THREE IS RS with SIGCOV and ping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Closely connected with Michael Ibru and the Ibru Organization, which are both notable in Nigeria. Associated with many notable entities in Nigeria. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your support and comment. I think most of the editors/administrators clamoring for a "deletion" are not familiar with the "subject" and the Nigerian social establishment. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Batmanthe8th @Jay Kenechukwu Being closely connected to a notable topic doesn't guarantee notability. But it does give us a redirect target (Ibru Organization) as an WP:ATD. What do you think about that? -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBFY-LD[edit]

KBFY-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV found for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Sly Cooper#Major characters. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 12:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sly Cooper (character)[edit]

Sly Cooper (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doing a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing about the character in a significant capacity, heck most discussion if any is strictly about the games. Unless there's an angle I'm missing, it doesn't seem to be a notable character, let alone one with impact. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sly Cooper#Major characters. The height of Sly's popularity was in the early 2000s before widespread Internet coverage, so WP:OFFLINE sources likely exist where online ones don't. I found a couple of promising ones in Game Developer magazine [14] [15]. But, most mentions of Sly appear to be about the game or its story as a whole. I do think there's enough to merit a list of characters and would encourage the cleanup and recreation of List of Sly Cooper characters with sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I like the guy, and I'd be pretty happy if some stronger reception came out for him, and maybe one day I'll take another look, just in case. But for now, he's unfortunately lacking. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Unless something more turns up, Sly just doesn't have enough to divorce him from the rest of his series in terms of an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge per above. Some of these awards are WP:SIGCOV, but I've always felt that an article requires both a quality and quantity of reliable coverage. (See: WP:MINIMUMCOV.) The series is literally about the character, so that is a good WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Considering Sly Cooper's peak popularity in the early 2000s and the potential availability of offline sources, such as Game Developer magazine, the proposal to merge Sly into the Major characters section of the main Sly Cooper article appears reasonable. This approach ensures that information about Sly is still covered within the broader context of the series. Given the character's historical significance, merging allows for a more consolidated and comprehensive representation without the need for a standalone article.KarKuZoNga (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am almost sure that this is an AI-generated summary of the comments above, particularly looking at @Zxcvbnm's comment. See this user's other AfD contributions and all of them are just summaries of other's comments written in a very AI style. GraziePrego (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely not written by the same "person" who wrote the !vote above. -- asilvering (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of solved missing person cases: post-2000. czar 22:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Gaynor Lord[edit]

Disappearance of Gaynor Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:SENSATIONAL. A case of missing white woman syndrome. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources used here are The Guardian, BBC News, ITV News, and The Independent - not a single one which is a tabloid. WP:SENSATIONAL does not apply. 9News, the last source used, could be a tabloid, but even if it was, broad coverage by non-tabloids has been demonstrated. Furthermore, missing white woman syndrome isn't a valid reason to dismiss an article because 1) the term is used to highlight that non-white women deserve more coverage, not that white women deserve less, and 2) it's not Wikipedia's job trying to fix social issues. Cortador (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything @Cortador said. There is, to my knowledge, no such as thing as WP: Missing White Women Syndrome even if this concept denotes a very real thing. Wickster12345 (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per my comment above. Wickster12345 (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, and WP:NEVENTS. All sources are primary sources that amount to routine news coverage. Notability requires secondary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To add to my rationale, this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. It is a run-of-the-mill missing person case that lacks persistence beyond the news cycle and will not have a lasting effect, beyond her friends and family. I also agree with Thebiguglyalien. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of solved missing person cases: post-2000 where it can be sufficiently covered. It was, after all, a high-profile case while the search for her was ongoing. This is Paul (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this option; I had no idea that list existed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. There's a clear consensus against keeping the page as a standalone article, but views are split between Merge and Redirect. Discussion about which content, if any, is to be moved to the target can continue on the target's Talk page. Note: since International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war is a redir, the merge should proceed to its target. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visitors to Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Visitors to Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure there's enough here for a standalone article, it seems like it's scope can be covered by existing pages like 2023 Israel–Hamas war, International reactions to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, and Media coverage of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This war is hugely important but not everything necessarily needs a spin off. 

BuySomeApples (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pha̍k-oa-chhi romanization[edit]

Pha̍k-oa-chhi romanization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this system actually exists outside this article. The equivalent article was deleted on zhwiki for this reason. MSG17 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. MSG17 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pe̍h-ōe-jī, as all searches for the characters "白話字" direct me to sources regarding Pe̍h-ōe-jī. I've found this database from an old discussion about adding Pha̍k-oa-chhi romanization, but nothing else. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple romanization systems called "白話字" – see 白話字 for a partial list and zh:白話字 (消歧義) for others. "白話字" is a natural name for an orthography reform because it literally means "vernacular script". I don't think that's a good reason to redirect the name of one romanization system to a different one. I think the article should be deleted (not merged) unless sources can be found. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Llajwa (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against renomination, due to low participation. Complex/Rational 03:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the Arts[edit]

Enjoy the Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and defunct non-profit. Orphaned for nearly a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of citations and orphaning as mentioned by @Pepperbeast. VERY WP:PUFFERY too. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Article content does not determine notability". The fact that an article wants for cites or links is irrelevant, because Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... [I]f the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter if there is no interest in the article and it gets orphaned. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral due to WP:MOS not having an affect as I believed. I also believed orphaning affected status, which it doesn't. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Source 2 in the list above is solid. 1 and 3 are trivial, but with them and the rest, we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. czar 22:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yalgaar[edit]

Yalgaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeatedly recreated without proper sourcing. None of the other language versions have better sourcing. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in Hindi or other languages can’t access, in which case I’m happy to withdraw this. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those are interesting tidbits of information but they are not in depth coverage of the subject. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily notable, one of the highest-grossing films of that year. Sources are available. Needs expansion, not deletion. It is challenging to find sources for Indian films of that period as no archives exist, but it's good as is. Shahid • Talk2me 10:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source by The Indian Express has been added. Shahid • Talk2me 10:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The sources currently in the article are marginal and better ones are not easily available on line but what we have is much better than nothing and strongly suggests that more reviews in contemporary (1992) offline sources should exist. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a high grossing film with notable actors Mr Vili talk 00:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Since the two relists garnered no new participation, I see no point in a third relist. Any editor is welcome to re-nominate this in six months. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak Ben-Bashat[edit]

Yitzhak Ben-Bashat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Very few sources, with the existing sources not being sufficient to establish notability (either being sources that are not independent of the subject or simply include the subject in a list of people killed).

There was previously an attempt by User:Zero0000 to speedily delete the page, but the author User:Eladkarmel contested the nomination. The argument for deletion points to the only sourcing being inevitable press releases mentioning the subject's death and argues that the page is a WP:MEMORIAL. In contesting this, the author made an argument against deletion by noting that the article exists in 5 languages (which counts English) and notes the subject's rank as a colonel. I am not persuaded by that counterargument. As the speedy deletion was contested without any prospect of the notability concerns being addressed, I am nominating this page at AfD as the next step per WP:DPAFD.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search shows that the subject does indeed pass WP:GNG in the sense that there is coverage in RS. (The English translation is poor, resulting in errors; lieutenant colonel does not outrank colonel.) But I am unconvinced that he did anything noteworthy apart from lead his unit into an ambush like this guy. I wish that WP:SOLDIER had not been scrapped, because it would give us a yardstick: colonel is not a flag rank, a brigade is not a major formation unit, and the action in which he was killed is not an important one. So it looks like a WP:MEMORIAL to me, but I'm willing to take arguments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The contents of this article show a typical biography of a military officer. The only part which is unusual is being one of the higher ranked Israeli officers killed in the present Gaza war. This is not especially notable either as many people have been killed, and we have WP:SINGLEEVENT to guide us. Long term coverage will only be to the extent that all nations remember their war dead. Overall it is completely obvious that this is a WP:MEMORIAL page. Zerotalk 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. No BLPBIO1E concern (also not claimed aboveby nom) as multiple RS covered Ben Bashat prior to his death. Prodding this was clearly against regulations. No case for deletion either. gidonb (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would one need an understanding of Hebrew to locate those RS? When I try to search for sources to satisfy the notability requirements, I'm not finding anything promising. Searching on DuckDuckGo yields only pages reporting on the subject's death and Wikipedia mirror websites. Searching on Google is even less promising, yielding only Fandom pages, tweets, and automated Reddit threads about this deletion discussion. Likely due to the language barrier, I can't find enough sources to even justify a "Death of Yitzhak Ben-Bashat" page, much less enough to justify a "Yitzhak Ben-Bashat" biography. Indeed, searching in Hebrew does bring up many more pages, but all that I can find are dated around the time of his death, and even then, it doesn't take long before I run out of news results and all that comes up in the search is social media posts.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that searching in a foreign language is difficult and therefore many AfDs are misguided. In this respect, this nomination is one in a long tradition. On the positive side, you did not claim it is BIO1E. I immediately mentioned that. Many make that claim based on very partial searches. gidonb (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources in Hebrew are sufficient to show persistent coverage, at least since 2018, on a national level. In addition to sources already cited (excluding IDF sources), quick search for the name in Hebrew revealed the existence of others such as [16] [17]. Marokwitz (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for being the first to substantiate the WP:GNG claim with sources rather than simply saying that it meets it without elaborating, but I find these sources unconvincing. The most I can do to see what these sources say is an extremely rough machine translation, and at least according to that poor-quality machine translation, these can't really be used to establish notability. It appears that in the first source, the subject is only mentioned in passing, with the article being a routine announcement of who's being reshuffled. It appears to be an announcement of someone else taking a position previously held by the subject, while the subject moves to another position. The rest of that article is not about them, and even the sentences where the subject was mentioned were only half about them.
A single passing mention does not establish notability per WP:GNG (or WP:NBASIC) and does not warrant a standalone biographical article. As for the second page you linked, it looks like the subject is never even mentioned - I'm sure that's just the translation's fault, but I'd also make the educated guess that if the subject is mentioned in the second source, it must be in passing. The sources currently cited in the article certainly don't establish notability, even putting aside the ones that obviously don't count like the multiple links to the IDF website.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider additional sources in other languages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Singha Durbar (TV series). Star Mississippi 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhintuna Joshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bhintuna Joshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP which does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBLP or WP:NACTOR; Google search for additional refs produces few sources outside of social media or promotional materials. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actively being edited so would prefer not to close as soft-delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Singha Durbar (TV series) as per my rationale in the pervious AFD. The evidence for COI editing has only gotten stronger, and the author has made no progress in demonstrating this deserves a standalone. I would appreciate it if an admin could make them go to AFC instead of reinstating the redirect without improvement, which is what should have happened per previous AFD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking significant coverage. WilsonP NYC (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Database record 1. "Bhintuna Joshi". lensnepal. Retrieved 14 January 2024.
Brief promo bio 2. ^ "Nalekha Chithi 2013". Kathmandu Craze. 14 January 2024.
Name mention, "...and supporting actors like Bhintuna Joshi and Alok Thapa as..." 3. ^ "Singhadurbar tv series". thehimalayantimes. 14 January 2024.
Database record 4. ^ "Bhintuna Joshi Bio". Film Development Board Nepal. Retrieved 14 January 2024.
Name mention, "Karma Shakya and Bhintuna Joshi are seen in..." 5. ^ "चलचित्र 'भ्रम'को ट्रेलर". artistkhabar. 24 November 2016. Retrieved 14 January 2024.
Brief promo for films, subject is quoted. Fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV 6. ^ "कर्मासँगको रोमान्समा भिन्तुनाले भुलिन् पुसको जाडो". suvadin.com. 7 January 2017. Retrieved 14 January 2024.
Q&A style interview 7. ^ "The new face of politics on screen". thehimalayantimes.com. 18 September 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2024.
Promo for music video 8. ^ "यः मदन दाइ म्यूजिक भिडियो सार्वजनिक". newsnepa.com. Retrieved 25 January 2024.
Name mention in list, "Similarly, Hisila Maharjan, Bhintuna Joshi, Rozina Suwal, Annapurnaswari Shrestha and Rajni Khadgi were the winners on the women's side." 9. ^ "'नेवा: सुपरस्टार सिरपा' का विजेतालाई पुरस्कार वितरण". www.ratopati.com. Retrieved 14 January 2024.
Name mentions in awards show recap, fails WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 10. ^ "Page 3 Nepalbhasha People's Choice Awards concludes". myrepublica.com. Retrieved 15 January 2024.
Ping me if WP:THREE refs showing SIGCOV is found in IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Brighton[edit]

Harry Brighton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:N. An article with almost no reliable sources on a minor character. I couldn't find many reliable sources on "Harry Brighton". JooneBug37 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Los Angeles Clippers accomplishments and records[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Conyo14 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Los Angeles Clippers accomplishments and records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdrawn Just a collection of records that are kept off site at the team's website, a primary source, a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information at 3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 21:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, unfortunately I only saw this page at NPP and didn't realize the can I've opened here... This appears to be a pretty prevalent practice. My personal opinion, based one my above reasoning, is still that this article should be deleted. I also understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; those should be examined as well, although I am choosing not to group them here lest we start down the path to a WP:TRAINWRECK. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 21:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same thinking as Specific Sports Team records. The records are based on the primary source (the players and team completing the accomplishments), but the written-down records are established by the League then notably distributed by reliable, secondary, independent sources. For example, Kawhi Leonard made the NBA All Defensive Team in 2021.[18] Also, these types of lists are backed up by independent almanacs such as Los Angeles Almanac. Conyo14 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:SPINOFF. More specifically, I think this information does deserve to be on Wikipedia, but not in the Los Angeles Clippers primary article. I would like to see these related "awards and accomplishments" articles beefed up with more references, but I think the topic in general satisfies notability because these are much-reported-upon stats and awards. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (nom). Despite my opinions on whether or not I believe these articles should exist on the project, given the letter of guidelines, I understand there is a lot of precedent to leave these up. Conyo14 (talk · contribs) and SportsGuy789 (talk · contribs) have raised valid points, so I've withdrawn to save valuable volunteer time. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 03:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Castle Group[edit]

The Castle Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is difficult to tell whether the subject has any major holding on the structural engineering industry, just as it is difficult to tell from a citation search whether the article's expansiveness covers a justifiable range of points. One would find that the vast majority of citations have to do with either self-published sources or notations to do with awards granted to the company (all of which are from New Jersey, the company's founding region, I noticed), and one would also find that the lack of widespread coverage on the subject apart from the already-embedded sources make little more than a mere trivial mention of the subject or its active projects over time. As such, I would agree - the subject definitely fails to meet WP:ORGDEPTH as well as other critical criteria and should therefore be deleted. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Allan (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charlie Allan (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. No obvious WP:ATD. No consensus at 2022 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Scotland. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. I don't consider Scottish Sports Writer of the year a major award. LibStar (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As he died recently, I've updated the article accordingly, including various obituaries. I'm not expressing a view on fulfilment but the content of these may be worth considering in establishing notability. That the BBC saw fit to devote 6 minutes on a national station may be indicative. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has now been considerably immproved (thank you) with references demonstrating notability about a distinguished and versatile individual. The obituaries are significant articles with editorial content. Thincat (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll withdraw my !vote and decide later what to do. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment It transpires that evidently there were two Charlie Allans active in journalism, broadcasting and sport in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. What a coincidence that the Afd should be submitted the day the other Charlie's obituary was aired on BBC Radio 4. I have created a separate one, Charlie Allan (farmer), containing the material I collated in the last couple of days. I have returned Charlie Allan (journalist) to its former state which, to me, is insufficient to indicate notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, on further reflection, Delete the article under discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mart Visser[edit]

Mart Visser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:AddWittyNameHere. This nomination is another giant BEFORE failure. Folks keep nominating articles mostly because these carry X years of this or that warning. Seemingly in defiance of Wikipedia:There is no deadline and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visible from Space[edit]

Visible from Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding Amateur Dramatic And Operatic Society[edit]

Spalding Amateur Dramatic And Operatic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein Files[edit]

Epstein Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list very similar scope to that article which was deleted for the potential of serious BLP issues. This document release can easily be covered in the main Epstein article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the Jeffrey Epstein's associates list AfD: @Objective3000:, @Schazjmd:, @Ianmacm: @Altenmann:, @AndyTheGrump:, @Serial Number 54129:, @Carrite:, @Springee:, @Joseph2302:, @Oaktree b:, @Schminnte:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible the article could be kept without the specific living people being named? Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NOTNEWS is a fatal objection really. It's another brief burst of attention in a long-running saga that doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what we they even show, "Stephen Hawking flew to an island at some point and is mentioned once in an email about something else" isn't really worthy of an article. Prince Andrew's name is mentioned once or twice in rather mundane emails about business items, hardly anything needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: The article flirts with violating WP:BLP within the first three sentences. For example, the mention of Bill Clinton alongside Prince Andrew when the former (along with another former President who was mentioned) hasn't been directly implicated in wrongdoing suggests to the reader otherwise and seems the entire overall purpose of the article is bad faith. PaulRKil (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument regarding “not news” is utterly unsustainable. The files this article is about are from a decade ago, when Epstein was being sued. As per the included ref. in the article from the Wall Street Journal, the files were released by a judge based on a lawsuit from the Miami Herald. That was a long-running lawsuit, years in the making, by the way.
    Now, someone objects to the presence of some bluelinked names in the article. Ahh, but the article itself clarifies that the blue-linked names, have not been linked to any criminal actions, employing NBC News as a source.
    See, just because people who already have Wikipedia entries are mentioned in an article, that does not make the article suitable for deletion. For instance, in the article about 9/11, the name of George Bush is cited. Is that a WP:BLP? No, it is not, because no-one is accusing him of anything! He just happened to be an official at the time. Likewise, NBC News informs us that Epstein liked to mention some names, and that those names therefore show up in the files, but no-one is accusing them of anything! The criteria that requires deletion of any articles about any distasteful matters that for good reason happen to include the names of innocent people would require us to delete, for instance, the Tate–LaBianca murders, because it mentions Roman Polanski in the lede… but he’s not accused of anything because he wasn’t even there! Now, is that a WP:BLP? Remember: WP:NOTCENSORED.
    Finally, deletion is not cleanup. Hey, if anyone doesn’t like that NBC news mentions Cate Blanchett in relation to this entry, I think it is unencyclopaedic to remove her, but you could remove her if you wanted to, as opposed to nuking the article.XavierItzm (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what do they prove? Person XYZ went to an island on ABC flight, it's pretty much routine stuff without any further context. These are just a few documents in the larger story and don't have anything special in them. I'm not seeing stand-alone notability without some sort of context. So what if Mr X visited an island? Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about proof of anything. This is about a legal dispute started in 2018 by a major newspaper, with coverage from WP:RS in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and resolved in early 2024.XavierItzm (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should really be about the legal dispute, not the random documents. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what our Wikipedia article is all about. About the legal dispute. Read it. The AfD closer should note most objections appear to be rehashes of the critiques to the previous AfD. This is a substantially different article. XavierItzm (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: This article is on the same subject as the speedily deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list and was created by the same editor. The article essentially accuses Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton of criminality by mentioning them and then providing a list of names not linked to any criminal actions omitting these two. The article is a gross violation of WP:BLP. Editing out the most egregious parts will still result in an article with little purpose other than to suggest criminality. I also feel the creator of these two articles should be sanctioned. WP:G10 WP:G4. O3000, Ret. (taok) 14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that the article accuses anyone about anything. In fact, like the cited NPR source says: “The fact that an individual is named or that they socialized with Epstein does not indicate wrongdoing.” Anyway, people feel sensitively about members of the Royal and Clinton families, so I’ve removed their names.XavierItzm (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
people feel sensitively about members of the Royal and Clinton families.... This has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity about certain people. This has to do with BLPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. As poo the previous AfD linked above, a WP:BLP violation magnet, and facile disclaimers such as 'Not everyone named in the documents is thought to be implicated in criminal behaviour' give a thoroughly misleading impression as to what the documents actually contain. Furthermore, the attempt to portray documents submitted in a court case as somehow notable independently of the case, and of the individuals the case was about, inherently violates WP:NPOV. We already have articles covering this subject matter, in context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The files are pretty much a nothing sandwich... Lists of emails and people that flew to his island, flight logs, nothing of importance. A random collection of documents that really only show what airplanes went to an airport on an island without mentioning Epstein. At best, they can get a one line mention in his article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent notability, no encyclopedic content. - Altenmann >talk 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the related AfD, I'm basing this on WP:NOPAGE as this content is not notable (or even understandable) without the context of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein (both articles already include information about the unsealed documents). Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the last AfD and the continued problems with independent notability. Schminnte [talk to me] 16:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. czar 22:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Operatic Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Southampton Operatic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, or that there is an WP:ATD. 2009 AfD resulted in no consensus but standards were significantly lower then. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete - I can find lots of passing mentions in third party reliable sources but nothing that can said to be significant coverage. As people remarked in the first AfD, that's somewhat surprising for an organisation of this age, but it is what it is. WaggersTALK 12:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4 gnews hits despite existing for 100 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Flora Artist in Residency Program[edit]

Villa Flora Artist in Residency Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's difficult to justify this article staying any longer, about an artist in residence programme in Slovenia. It's difficult enough to find out what Villa Flora is - a search online only brings up a hotel. Article has been tagged as lacking notability since 2014, with no improvement. Sionk (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tjaša Iris. A09|(talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has not been adequately covered in available reliable sources (fails WP:GNG) and is too long to be merged. --TadejM my talk 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1901 Wilmington Conference Academy football team[edit]

1901 Wilmington Conference Academy football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV found for this subject to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Sources present are all short and routine game recaps. Open to a WP:ATD but I don't see any merge/redirect targets. Let'srun (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Delaware. Let'srun (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is at least the ninth time you've nominated for deletion an article written by me in a month. Its starting to feel excessive. But aside from that, if we draftify I can eventually get to creating a merger article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per BeanieFan11 would be my first choice but my second choice would be to redirect to Wesley Wolverines football. Alvaldi (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – BeanieFan11 is committed to improving the article and others like it, appointing them to the AfD seems premature. Svartner (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that WP:DRAFTIFY says that articles older than 90 days should not be moved to draftspace "without a prior consensus at AfD or another suitable venue". Let'srun (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Coverage during this era, particularly for smaller programs, is hard to come by. The coverage already uncovered is a pretty good start. If Beanie wants to work on this in draft space and try to bring it back as a season article (or perhaps as a broader/merger article on WCA football), I spport affording him that opportunity, 100%. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Chemnitz#Culture and sights. RL0919 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SCHLINGEL International Film Festival[edit]

SCHLINGEL International Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sysax Multi Server. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sysax FTP Automation[edit]

Sysax FTP Automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Saint Kitts and Nevis national football team#CONCACAF Gold Cup. RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kitts and Nevis at the CONCACAF Gold Cup[edit]

Saint Kitts and Nevis at the CONCACAF Gold Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, no content at CONCACAF Gold Cup that would make this an appropriate WP:BLAR candidate. Note that the article itself barely even has any information actually about St Kitts and Nevis's involvement. Searching online, coverage is limited to match announcements and reports that don't offer much in the way of significant coverage of this team's participation in the CONCACAF Gold Cup. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Elf on the Shelf. RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christa Pitts[edit]

Christa Pitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The awards aren't enough to meet biographic notability and it's not clear she's independently notable of her company or its famous product. A redirect to Elf on the Shelf, where her book has also been redirected and which most of the sources are actually about would be fine Star Mississippi 16:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Adweek, Entrepreneur and Good Housekeeping articles are specifically about Pitts, which demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This biography of a living person does not speak for itself and does not explain what third parties have said about her. It says what she and her company say about her, and that is not important. The article has been reference-bombed, so an assessment of the sources is not feasible. The Heymann criterion is, first, to identify between three and five sources, and, second, within seven days, to include text in the article based on what the sources say that establish biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does the originator have a conflict of interest? After becoming autoconfirmed, they have made no edits other than to this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the source push this just over WP:GNG. Adweek is likely the best source here. Others are interviews, which are questionable. Needs some clean up, potentially. tla 02:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: Good Housekeeping and Entrepreneur are interviewers, with the standard introduction. Likewise, Adweek relies largely on what she says so even with all three sources together there's not enough to meet WP:BASIC and the coverage is largely about The Elf on the Shelf so appears to be WP:BIO1E. Redirecting to The Elf on the Shelf is an WP:ATD option though. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: there's nothing here other than her association with Elf on the Shelf, so even if there is enough coverage to technically pass WP:GNG I don't see how it would serve readers to have a separate article for Pitts anyway. That said, I'm not convinced that there is the coverage of Pitts we would need anyway: the sources about her are interviews (I don't have the full text of the Adweek article, but contra tla, that also appears to be an interview, judging by the subheadline "Christa Pitts on taking The Elf on the Shelf from a self-published book to a global IP"). But she is mentioned at The Elf on the Shelf and that redirect would be a valid WP:ATD. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional conversation regarding WP:1E/WP:BLP1E would be helpful in establishing a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Elf on the Shelf: AdWeek is good, but most of the sources cited her and that I've found via searching Google and Proquest lack independence from the article subject. I don't think BLP1E applies since being a CEO of a company isn't an event. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps borderline but the full profile in Adweek and multiple other significant sources that extend beyond mere mentions confer independent notability in my view. WilsonP NYC (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which other sources? S0091 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ per WP:BLP1E. RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imprisonment of Eddie Núñez[edit]

Imprisonment of Eddie Núñez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails Wikipedia's guideline on living persons who are notable for only one event. There's been no sustained coverage of this story as of yet, and it's too soon for an article; Wikipedia is not a news site. Additionally, although this is not an attack page and it states clearly that the charges were dropped, we should be wary of an article containing serious allegations involving child exploitation, anti-semitism, and bomb threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of association football players who died during their careers. czar 22:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chineme Martins[edit]

Chineme Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer unfortunately seems like a failure of WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:ONEEVENT. Being mentioned without a link in List of association football players who died during their careers should probably be enough. Geschichte (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Complex/Rational 17:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsch (magazine)[edit]

Kitsch (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Michaels (voice actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jillian Michaels (voice actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable voice actor. This article was previously deleted when the only citation was to IMDb. Now, almost all of the citations are to behindthevoiceactors.com, which appears to contain user-generated content. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Video games, and Canada. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Behind the Voice Actors is apparently a reliable source (green per sourcetool), but it's simply a listing of works she's voiced. No other coverage of any kind; Gsearch is straight to her website, which appears to copy the wording from here... Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately this is not notable on the basis of WP:NACTOR. As with WP:GNG there needs to be significant coverage about Michaels' work by reliable secondary sources, which currently doesn't exist in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While most of her roles are minor characters, she would seem to pass WP:NACTOR due to her major roles. Namely, as Shippo, who is one of the main characters of Inuyasha - which she also played in numerous Inuyasha movies, and Lloyd Garmadon, a main character of Ninjago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We still need SIGCOV even if she meets NACTOR. Is there any that you know of? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to David Pratt (Scottish journalist), without prejudice to early recreation if and when new sources support that. A reasonable ATD, well supported by the views expressed here. Owen× ☎ 16:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intifada – The Long Day of Rage[edit]

Intifada – The Long Day of Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that the content of this article is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books), as there are only 2 potentially reliable sources; RFC: Electronic Intifada is depreciated. As I do not believe that both sources can be counted towards the notability requirement, and as the original editor is unavailable, I would suggest a deletion.

Additionally, the use of RFC: Electronic Intifada by an author who does not appear to be an authority in their respective field as the primary source for the content of the book, meaning that the content cannot be sourced well. FortunateSons (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my first AfD, so anyone with more experience is very welcome to correct any errors made. Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FortunateSons: I believe you've performed all the steps correctly. In the future, you can try using Twinkle, which greatly simplifies the process. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will. Does it work on mobile, or do I need a desktop? FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting link above: "Twinkle is not yet compatible with the mobile skin Minerva Neue. However, someone has written a third party patch that you can install. Please follow the directions at User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile." and also: "You must use a supported web browser." and "If you're using Windows, and you're using a touchscreen, you may need to tap and hold the "TW" button in order to get the options to come up." (from Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I’ll try that next time, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed To Keep in light of the review mentioned below. (Yet another one would indeed help but, above all, the redirect and merge could allow expanding the page about Pratt. As other users wish, really. Both are OK, I think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into David Pratt (Scottish journalist) (selectively) as a totally improper SPINOUT. Regardless of notability, the bio article is short and it does not discuss this book. Much of the book article content will be a welcome addition to the biography. gidonb (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found another review in ProQuest, from Reference and Research Book News; Portland Vol. 22, Iss. 4, (Nov 2007). WP:NBOOK only requires two reviews, so if just one of Frontline Club or anphoblacht is considered reliable, that is an NBOOK pass. If neither is considered acceptable I can keep looking; I suspect there are more reviews out there in the databases. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not knowledgeable about the source and cannot access it; could you please elaborate on context and reliability? FortunateSons (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested above. Llajwa (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Apopka, Florida. Star Mississippi 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apopka Fire Department[edit]

Apopka Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not pass NOTNEWS and onlY seems to have one thing that got coverage. No SIGCOV Grahaml35 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that it's not significant enough, I'm willing to merge this with Apopka, Florida. Would that be better? Justafriendlykiwi (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that would be better than the stand alone article. It is not significant at the moment. There is no WP:LASTING. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Avaya. ✗plicit 02:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Communication Environment[edit]

Agile Communication Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Old software almost exclusively cited to its vendor. Can't find much online. BrigadierG (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AUX (company)[edit]

AUX (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional not notable company's page; clear COI; not reliable sources (in the article on via online search) Gavrover (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lu, Ruiyang 陆瑞洋 (ed.). 奥克斯的"无间道" ["Infernal Affairs" by AUX]. 赢在营销: 营销精英的必读本 [Winning in Marketing: A must-read for marketing elites] (in Chinese). Beijing: Gold Wall Press [zh]. OCLC 1382494194. Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "奥克斯1989年进入电表制造业,随之相继研制出环网柜、变压 器开关柜、箱式变电站等产品,全面进入电力产业。1994年涉足家 电制造业,随之相继研制出商用冰箱、空调、小家电等产品,全面 进入家电产业。2002年进入手机制造业,随之相继研制出GSM、 CDMA等产品。2002年5月进入移动通讯产业,成为国内新兴的移 动通讯终端设备的专业制造商。"

      From Google Translate: "Oaks entered the electric meter manufacturing industry in 1989, and subsequently developed ring main unit cabinets, transformer switch cabinets, box-type substations and other products, fully entering the power industry. In 1994, it got involved in the home appliance manufacturing industry, and subsequently developed commercial refrigerators, air conditioners, small household appliances and other products, fully entering the home appliance industry. In 2002, it entered the mobile phone manufacturing industry and subsequently developed GSM, CDMA and other products. In May 2002, it entered the mobile communications industry and became an emerging professional manufacturer of mobile communications terminal equipment in China."

    2. Zhu, Ping 朱萍 (2017-02-15). Xiao, Jingwen 肖靜文 (ed.). 奧克斯跨界口腔醫療折戟 大小股東內斗禍及患者 [AUX' cross-border dental medical treatment failed due to infighting between large and small shareholders, which harmed patients]. 21st Century Business Herald (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via China Daily.

      The article notes: "奧克斯集團創立于1986年，以家用電器等起家后跨界到地產、醫療健康、金融等。為了在醫療大健康領域發展，集團旗下上市公司三星電氣(11.710, -0.04, -0.34%)在2015年更名為三星醫療，形成醫療服務與電力產品雙主業格局，醫療服務被視為拉動公司未來業務發展與業績提升的主要引擎。... 資料顯示，奧克斯集團進軍大健康產業先后掛牌浙江大學明州醫院、新建南昌大學附屬撫州醫院、設立醫療投資管理公司、成立醫療並購基金等。"

      From Google Translate: "AUX was founded in 1986. It started with household appliances and then crossed over to real estate, medical health, finance, etc. In order to develop in the field of medical health, the group's listed company Samsung Electric (11.710, -0.04, -0.34%) changed its name to Samsung Medical in 2015, forming a dual-main business structure of medical services and power products. Medical services are regarded as driving the company The main engine for future business development and performance improvement. ... Data shows that AUX has entered the big health industry and has successively listed Zhejiang University Mingzhou Hospital, newly built Nanchang University Affiliated Fuzhou Hospital, established a medical investment management company, established a medical M&A fund, etc."

    3. Wang, Rulin 王汝林 (2005). 创业战略设计学 [Entrepreneurship Strategy Design]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. p. 66. ISBN 7-302-11740-3. Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "宁波奥克斯集团是我国家电行业的一匹黑马,是机电行业成功运用多种营销战略开 拓市场的一把利剑,是由单一化向多元化扩展的精英,更是中国民营企业快速崛起的一个典范。从四明山下的一个牛棚起家到当今中国制造业的新秀,奥克斯15年的时间完成 了跨越1000倍的成长历程。解读奥克斯所创造的令人难以置信的奇迹,不仅可以更好 地解读浙江民营经济迅速发展之谜,更可以看到奥克斯对于事件营销的过程中战略设计 的特点和创新。"

      From Google Translate: "Ningbo AUX is a dark horse in my country's home appliance industry. It is a sharp sword in the electromechanical industry that successfully uses various marketing strategies to open up the market. It is an elite that expands from singleness to diversification. It is also a model of the rapid rise of China's private enterprises. From a bullpen at the foot of Siming Mountain to a rising star in China's manufacturing industry today, AUX has completed a growth process that exceeds 1,000 times in 15 years. Interpreting the incredible miracles created by AUX can not only better understand the mystery of the rapid development of Zhejiang's private economy, but also see the characteristics and innovations of AUX's strategic design in the process of event marketing."

    4. Xiao, Long 肖龙 (2011) [2007]. 管人不如管环境 [It’s better to take care of the environment than to take care of people] (4 ed.). Beijing: Beijing Book Co. [zh]. ISBN 978-7-301-12132-0. Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "奥克斯集团的总部在浙江宁波。随着公司的发展,人越来越 多,非本地员工的比例也越来越大,在众多非本地员工中以四川 人和湖南人为主。要想让这么多人全力以赴地工作,首先要满足 员工的基本生活。俗话说:民以食为天。可偏偏四川人、湖南人 的口味和宁波人有很大的差异。为了让四川和湖南籍的员工吃得 好,公司管理层要求食堂聘请川菜师傅,增加川菜的比重。可 是,这一要求与食堂的利益无绝对联系,食堂的管理人员因此毫 不重视,一拖再拖。奥克斯集团的管理层并没有马上强制执行自 己的决定,而是采取了非常巧妙的方法。"

      From Google Translate: "Oaks Group is headquartered in Ningbo, Zhejiang. With the development of the company, there are more and more people, and the proportion of non-local employees is also increasing. Among the many non-local employees, Sichuan and Hunan people are the main ones. If you want so many people to work with all their strength, you must first meet the basic needs of employees. As the saying goes: Food is the most important thing for people. But the tastes of Sichuan and Hunan people are very different from those of Ningbo people. In order to allow Sichuan and Hunan employees to eat well, the company management requires the canteen to hire Sichuan cuisine chefs to increase the proportion of Sichuan cuisine. However, this request has no absolute connection with the interests of the canteen, so the management of the canteen does not pay attention to it and delays it again and again. The management of Oaks Group did not immediately enforce its decision, but adopted a very clever approach."

    5. Zhang, Yushuo (2019-06-11). Armour, Ben (ed.). "Aux Clashes With Gree Over Aircon Quality Claims, Refers Matter to Police". Yicai Global [zh]. Shanghai Media Group. Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2024-01-18.

      The article notes: "Founded in 1986, Aux Group's major products include home and commercial aircons and other household appliances. It had operating income of CNY86 billion (USD12.4 billion) last year."

    6. Aman, Azanis Shahila (2023-01-11). "China's Aux enters Malaysian consumer electrical market". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2024-01-18.

      The article notes: "Aux Group, one of China's top 500 enterprises, has made an entry into Malaysia's consumer electrical market through a collaboration with a local partner. ... Aux Group was established in 1986, and today its activities span over several industries covering home appliances, electrical equipment, medical equipment and services, real estate and investment. Its air conditioners is ranked the number three most popular brand in China and was the exclusive air conditioning supplier to the 19th Asian 2022 Hangzhou Games."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AUX (simplified Chinese: 奥克斯集团; traditional Chinese: 奧克斯集團) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard. Also found some negative news:
    "9小时庭审，奥克斯格力2.2亿元侵权索赔案烽烟再起_四川在线" [After a 9-hour court hearing, Oaks and Gree’s 220 million yuan infringement claim case resumed.]. 四川在线 (in Chinese). 2023-04-25. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
    "Aux purchased an invention patent... immediately used the patent as the basis of its rights one month later to file four infringement lawsuits", "Aux poached more than 300 Gree core R&D personnel through various means", "Aux filed 4 infringement lawsuits against Gree. Except for the temporary victory in August 2017, the remaining lawsuits ended in withdrawal. Gree sued Aux for infringement a total of 27 times and won all the cases.", etc. --94rain Talk 09:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss and evaluate the sourcing Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - adequate notability and sourcing. Llajwa (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Complex/Rational 17:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hui[edit]

Billy Hui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, independent secondary coverage appears to be nonexistent, taking into account that Hui is a BBC employee. Having received a British Empire Medal does not appear to be a strong case for WP:ANYBIO, particularly in the absence of any independent biographical coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I would love for this article to be kept, I think he's an important figure in radio in that particular region, but I just can't find anything out there in the world (including in the subscriber-only archives of the radio/TV trade press) to make this article pass GNG. Billy Hui just hasn't had enough coverage. Flip Format (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator, with no !votes for any other outcome. Complex/Rational 17:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCBC Cycle Singapore[edit]

OCBC Cycle Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some coverage, but I don't think it is enough for WP:N. No obvious WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. All of the Delete views are solidly anchored in policy, while none of the Keep views are. As for AI-authored views, I don't have strong feelings either way, but it behooves you to train your Large Language Model on our policies and guidelines if you want the resulting text to be taken seriously. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Parakala (executive)[edit]

Kumar Parakala (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:NBIO. Draftified and creator was asked not to return it to mainspace without AFC review. Previously deleted six times and salted at Kumar Parakala, now 4th time at AfD. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Kumar R. Parakala, KPMG Head of IT Advisory EMA & India..."
"Tech innovator's global digital career started in CQ"
Consulting Matters
"Kumar R. Parakala, KPMG Head of IT Advisory EMA & India, Chief Operating Officer Advisory India"
"ACS Elects New President for 2008/9"
There also appears to be a good Computerworld article on him, but the link is dead. You can tell from the title that is all about him: "Outgoing ACS President to Head up KPMG Indian IT Advisory Business"

Perfectstrangerz (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be very helpful to display links to previous AFDs. Also useful would be an evaluation to the sources mentioned in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the four citations I supplied earlier are the most valuable. They offer substantial coverage of the subject and originate from reputable publications. Some of the additions made by @Perfectstangerz are behind a paywall, but they could contribute to establishing notability. Royal88888 (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Feels like a case of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Other than that, a lot of non-WP:SIGCOV sources. In addition, the sources listed in the discussion above feel like press releases. Maybe a rewrite could make it, eh, fine... TLA (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying the sources "feel like press release" is much different than being a Press Release. If the sources do not state they are a press release and the bottom of page does not have an ABOUT section and contact info, then it is not a press release. Another way to tell is to search the article to see if you can find a duplicate on another site, if not, you should not assume it is a press release. Often press is sent out, but when journalists write their own version from the press releases, they are no longer considered a press release. Which parts of the article did you think sound promotional? I have reviewed and can't see any promo issues. Royal88888 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other comments above. Notable as the President of GHD Group, which has been around since 1928 (not some kind of flimsy startup). Also notable as the President of Australian Computer Society, another notable organization. Awards can be trimmed if they look a bit promotional, but overall still meets WP:NBIO criteria. Has plenty of press coverage in various mainstream Australian news outlets and thus meets SIGCOV. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AN article with this long of a history needs more policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: PROMO, Gnews is all Forbes Council posts by this person, very much sponsored. Nothing to be found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forbes Council is irrelevant. Please check my source analysis below, There are plenty of good sources. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a promo. None of his awards add to notability. No articles link to this except one on his surname. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check this page Australian Computer Society. He has a link from there. Since he has an award from a listed company on Wikipedia, it should be considered a notable award. The award "Leadership Excellence Award from the Queensland Government" also seems like a big deal. Royal88888 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " Since he has an award from a listed company on Wikipedia, it should be considered a notable award" No, doesn't make it a notable award. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here is a source analysis. Note this is not everything. I skipped the passing mentions. 
- MBANews - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
- ARN - Reliable Publication,  Non-primary, In-Depth Article
- IPthree - Partly interview, but it has long bio on him. Reliable Publication, Can't say if this is Primary or not, content may have been provided by the subject, In-Depth Article
- CQ University - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
- Indian Link - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
- ITNews - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
- International Federation for Information Processing -Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article
- iabca - Bio and profile, can be considered primary* The Hindustan Business Line - Behind paywall, but this may just be a mention based on the title
- Courier Mail - Reliable Publication, About half of the article can be considered primary and the other half is not, as it has some quotations, but also original coverage, In-Depth Article

Perfectstrangerz (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject, Kumar R. Parakala, demonstrates notability through various reliable sources, including MBANews, ARN, CQ University, Indian Link, and ITNews, providing in-depth coverage of his contributions and accomplishments. His role as President of the GHD Group, a longstanding organization since 1928, and his presidency of the Australian Computer Society contribute significantly to his notability. Awards, such as the Leadership Excellence Award from the Queensland Government, further underscore his recognition in notable spheres. While some critics have raised concerns about promotional language, the substantial press coverage and acknowledgment from reputable publications fulfill the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The inclusion of Kumar R. Parakala in significant industry publications and leadership roles justifies retaining the article."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment appears to be generated by AI. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the contrast in the writing style between your two comments does. All the quoted publications are either promotional (MBANews - a marketing company to promote studying an MBA in Australia, IndianLink - promoting the south asian community in Australia), niche trade publications (ARN & ITNews - both covering the IT industry in Australia) or have no editorial oversight (CQ University - the subject's university) and are unsuitable for determining notability. The subject has no credible claim to notability and the article violates both WP:PROMOTION and WP:SALT. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree, @SailingInABathTub. All of the other contributions that KarKuZoNga has made to deletion discussions all appear to be AI generated. GraziePrego (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if someone uses AI to better their grammar. Have you considered that English is not the first language for many? His arguments are valid. Let's review these sources more closely and look at the nominator's arguments which seem to be trying to validate his nomination of the page for deletion.
A publication about "MBA" does not make it promotional. Every publication is about a certain subject.
ARN is owned by Foundry, an IDG Company. Check the bottom of the site.This is a major media company, so we can assume they have editorial oversight.
ITNews is owned by Nextmedia, another major news company.
IndianLink is an Australian publication since 1994 and has won 27 awards (listed on their site and can be verified). They also have editors listed on their site, so there is oversight.
All these publications appear to be credible. There is absolutely no evidence any of them publish paid articles without disclosure as the nominator seem to imply. This is just the nominator's opinion, so let's let the closing admin be the judge. It seems to me the nominator is throwing any argument he can to validate his nomination. Royal88888 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Hustlers[edit]

Oxford Hustlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some coverage, but I don't think it is enough for WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Century Regional Developments[edit]

Pacific Century Regional Developments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some coverage, but I don't think it is enough for WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Richard Li, though it might unbalance that article. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kowa-Oto[edit]

Kowa-Oto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. With the lack of sourcing, I wouldn't propose a merge, but there could be redirect targets such as Chunsoft as a possible WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable based on the current state of sourcing. If a WP:BEFORE for WP:NONENG sources comes up with something, happy to change tack on this one. I'd suggest not merging - there's nothing to merge, given that the content is unsourced. Better to start from scratch. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All I found were press releases (here's one on 4Gamer), nothing indicating notability. I was unable to find any good coverage on Google or Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete‎. JBW (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ocient (company)[edit]

Ocient (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Publications are not properly focused on the company, neither they are reliable enough to grant meeting NCORP criteria Gavrover (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link solely focused on Ocient https://thenewstack.io/ocient-makes-the-case-for-coupling-storage-and-compute/ 73.211.222.32 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good post from tech journalist Chris Mellor that is unpaid and noteworthy. https://blocksandfiles.com/2022/07/01/ocient-hyperscale-data-analysis/ 73.211.222.32 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ocient Computational Center could also be added. It's at Illinois Tech. https://www.iit.edu/computing/research/research-centers 73.211.222.32 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Analysis of the source posted above:
  • Venturebeat article relies entirely on announcements from the company and interviews/quotes from their execs with no "Independent Content" as per ORGIND.
  • DataAMI article suffers the same flaws. Fails ORGIND.
  • Google is a partner company, not independent, fails ORGIND.
  • Chicago Tribune relies entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
  • The New Stack article relies entirely on info provided by the company and their execs and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • Blocks and Files article suffers the same way. Fails ORGIND.
  • The IIT listing is a short company profile, no in-depth information and relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and review. Because you're looking for more "independent" content, how about being included in this tech analysis: https://mattturck.com/mad2023/ or this independent write through: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thanks-trillion-hyperscale-data-warehousing-takes-flight-kavanagh-pewie/ 73.211.222.32 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independent Content" is not simply content that is published by somebody independent of the topic company, but content which contains "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation" which is also in-depth. I'm unable to find any mention of the topic company in your first reference, but as a blog post (self publishing), it is not considered a "reliable source" anyway and would not meet our criteria for establishing notability. Similarly, LinkedIn is self-publishing and is not considered a reliable source. Even leaving that aside, the LinkedIn article relies entirely on information from the founder/company and has no "Independent Content" as per the definition at WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics[edit]

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for a non-notable organization. An earlier PROD was removed because of "many search hits"--well, there may be many hits, but the ones that might look helpful are just really short mentions ([21], [22], [23]), besides a ton of just websites and non-neutral outfits. Here is the book listed in the article: a single mention; here is the LA Times article: a single mention with a brief appositive. There is no proper coverage for notability.

The article itself--well, there's a ton of name dropping, a bunch of organizational links, and an audacious claims, "CSC helped pass two new laws in California," linked to their own website. The subject does not meet our standards. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs by YouTube subscribers[edit]

List of football clubs by YouTube subscribers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this intersection Fram (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Organizations, Football, Internet, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolute nonsense. GiantSnowman 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:DAFT candidate. Not a meaningful measurement of support. Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This seems like content that is much more relevant to YouTube than to football itself. Svartner (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection of two unrelated things: football and YouTube. The two are not compared together in lots of reliable sources, which would be needed to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also agree, this isn't content for wiki. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable intersection and non-encyclopedic. YouTube subscriber count is not a reliable indicator of popularity, either. Local Variable (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be clear, the role of YouTube in promoting football clubs is notable because it is discussed extensively in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journals. (See Wikipedia Library.) However, I'm not seeing any meaningful discussion of this particular metric (football clubs compared by number of YouTube subscribers). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jazz Recital[edit]

The result was withdrawn, sources found, unless @QuietHere: objects Mach61 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Jazz Recital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail NALBUM. A search pulled up one Billboard review (note that the allmusic rating has no attached review) but nothing else. AfDing on the off chance someone has access to an offline source I don't Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of works by Dizzy Gillespie#As leader: I found no additional coverage of the album. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added three reviews to the article, including the Billboard one mentioned above. It now meets WP:NALBUM criterion 1. EddieHugh (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Nine Network#Local programs. IP redirected without comment; restoring. No need to take this back to AfD unless they continue to edit war about it. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 18:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% Footy[edit]

100% Footy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, multiple contested BLARS, I could only find passing mentions. Suggesting reverting to redirect. Justiyaya 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Miller (soundtrack)[edit]

Captain Miller (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are about the film see no reason to have separate article for soundtrack.Music is not a hit. Tame Rhino (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sufficiently sourced. The claim that "Sources are about the film" is hogwash. You have not argued to support that it's "not a hit". Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article contains refs to reliable sources about the soundtrack that seem enough to justify a standalone page. I would not be shocked if that was redirected, though, size and navigability permitting. But the problem would be that the redirected material would run the risk of being challenged as giving undue weight to the music..... (Opposed to deletion)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The page has been substantially improved since nomination.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep keep per Mushy Yank rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is well sourced and was accepted during AfC. The nominator has only joined this year, and has made hardly 30 edits, most are AfDs. Kailash29792 (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lugubre[edit]

Lugubre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found nothing outside niche media. gidonb (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ferdinand IV, Grand Duke of Tuscany. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Alice of Bourbon-Parma (born 1849)[edit]

Princess Alice of Bourbon-Parma (born 1849) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another genealogical entry, the purpose of which appears to be showing whom the subject married and to whom she gave birth. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Appears to have reached WP:HEY. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Marchetti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Giorgio Marchetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was already deleted via AFD in 2020, and I see little significant coverage since then to suggest the situation has changed. The "best" sources in the article seem to be along the lines of [25], which is both a tabloid and also just an interview so not really in depth secondary significant coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep following article improvement which seems to show notability. GiantSnowman 11:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nomination, There is some stuff, but that source you provide above is the Daily Star and not really the best, it's on par with WP:THESUN. I don't see how this passes modern GNG anyway. Govvy (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Govvy:, Besudes the Daily Star source above, I found [26], [27], [28] among many more Italian sources. Clearly siginficainf figure in UEFA and European football with Italian Wikipedia page and ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    two of those sources are the same... GiantSnowman 18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Clearly siginficainf figure in UEFA and European football with Italian Wikipedia page and ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, @Govvy:, See below. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Das osmnezz. Plus there is more just one click away. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Significant coverage focusing on Marchetti in the Italian media (cited in the article), and as the article explains, he has a cult following within the European football fan community as the "face" of the UEFA Champions League (and other league) draws – meaning, coverage can be found in multiple languages; the more you look, the more you find, though admittedly for Wikipedia purposes we have to ignore all the tabloids, which are considered non-RS. Plus as director of competitions for UEFA, he is frequently in the spotlight for decision making that has Champions League-wide ramifications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know, if I did change my vote it be a very weak keep, but the sources provided at the moment isn't really enough for me. The telegraph one in the article, "UEFA moves to save Champions League" well, I have access to the Telegraph and there is no article by that name on their system. And why there is a via there, I don't get that. So I don't think I am changing my vote at present. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn after article was nicely amended (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 16:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Database Nation[edit]

Database Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some coverage, but I don't think it is enough for WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Merge/redirect or redirect to author is a possible WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This book does not have anything to do with music, not sure why the nominator mentions WP:MUSICBIO. This book satisfies WP:NBOOK. From Google Scholar, I found this, this, this, there are more. These sources are independent and are sufficient to establish the notability. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per Deltaspace's comments - my error. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Cielo (band)[edit]

El Cielo (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. I couldn't find relevant sources in Spanish or English. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. There doesn't seem to be a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of Chlef (1679)[edit]

Campaign of Chlef (1679) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Sources in article and found in before are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments Source
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 1. "Abu-'l-Qāsim Ibn-Aḥmad Ibn-Alī Ibn-Ibrahīm az- Zaiyānī et Octave Victor Houdas, Le Maroc de 1631 à 1812 extrait de l'ouvrage intitulé Ettordjemân elmoʻarib ʻan douel elmachriq ou ʻlmaghrib, Octave Victor Houdas, 1886". archive.wikiwix.com. Retrieved 2024-01-13.
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c Maximilien Antoine Cyprien Henri Poisson de La Martinière et Napoléon Lacroix, Documents pour servir à l'étude du Nord Ouest africain: Le sud-ouest algérien et les régions limitrophes. Figuig. L'oued Guir. L'oued Saoura, Gouvernement général de l'Algérie, Service des affaires indigènes, 1896. p. 36.
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Comer Plummer III, Empire of Clay: The Reign of Moulay Ismail, Sultan of Morocco (1672-1727), Lulu Publishing Services, 2020". archive.wikiwix.com. p. 336. Retrieved 2024-01-13.
No objection to a consensus merge or redirect, nothing here merits a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk  09:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a translation, please adress this to the french wikipedia article. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack on Alicante (1582)[edit]

Sack on Alicante (1582) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Sources in article and found in before are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments Source
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 1. The Conversos and Moriscos in Late Medieval Spain and Beyond: Volume 2. The Morisco Issue. BRILL. 2012-06-22. ISBN 978-90-04-22860-3.
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 2. ^ Haedo, Diego de; Haëdo, Diego de (1881). Histoire des rois d'Alger (in French). A. Jourdan.
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 3. ^ Friedman, Ellen G. (1983). Spanish Captives in North Africa in the Early Modern Age. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-09380-8.
Fails SIGCOV, a brief mention, no details 4. ^ Collado, Manuel Danvila y (1889). La expulsión de los moriscos españoles: conferencias pronunciadas en el Ateneo de Madrid (in Spanish). Librería de Fernando Fé.
No objection to a consensus merge or redirect, nothing here merits a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk  09:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tshegofatso Seoka[edit]

Tshegofatso Seoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Two indifferent references fails to show any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out - that's not how we talk to each other. WP:AGF. Llajwa (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its sad you never engage or even want to answer my simple question, thus proving your biasness on African content! More reasons to dicolonise Wikipedia with such editos — Preceding unsigned comment added by MollelwaFahaSaBasotho (talk • contribs) 03:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelflife Records[edit]

Shelflife Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. No obvious WP:ATD, though there are pages on some of its artists. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to BBC Radio Ulster. Star Mississippi 04:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This New Day (BBC Radio Ulster)[edit]

This New Day (BBC Radio Ulster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources that can establish notability can be found CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see the sources that show that this mid-morning radio show is notable. JMWt (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to BBC Radio Ulster since there's no meaningful independent coverage of this show. Left guide (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Wenzel[edit]

Benedetta Wenzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this field hockey player to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that that up in my searches was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Subic Broadcasting Corporation#Stations. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 04:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWOK-FM (Olongapo City)[edit]

DWOK-FM (Olongapo City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that could support the subject's notability. Israel's Son 11:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two sources state the station's programming. Source 3 has a segment where it talks about the station. The last source indicated that it is nominated by the KBP as the best provincial FM station. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 13:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation#Stations; fails WP:GNG. I've reviewed all four of the references in the current version of the article: #1 is written by a host from the radio station, so it's a primary source, #2 is a story about a death in the mayor's family with a quote that name-drops this station as hosting a fundraiser telethon with absolutely no additional details or context about the station or their fundraiser, #3 is a WP:BLOG, #4 is about an award won by an entirely different station that mentions this station once in passing as a finalist for the award it didn't win. Left guide (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For some reason, I don't agree with Superastig and SBKSPP on why they think the article should be kept, especially that the sources cited are merely trivial mentions of the subject, one of which was written by someone who has worked for the station. Israel's Son 02:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my choice on whether you agree or disagree with the views of me and Astig. We have out own reason on why we believe the article meets WP:GNG. Since we can't change your mind, you can never change our minds as well. SBKSPP (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation: none of the four current sources provides independent SIGCOV. A blog is not RS, and a brief mention is not significant coverage. A claim such as "the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG" shows poor understanding of what our notability guidelines are about. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Eadie[edit]

Jennifer Eadie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient independent coverage of the subject – a Scottish women's field hockey player – to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this short piece from The Edinburgh Reporter with maybe five sentences of coverage, most of which is just repeating her own words. JTtheOG (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shower Beers[edit]

Shower Beers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Looked online and wasn't able to find anything that meets the guidelines for passing the SNS here. Also checked the newspaper archives and wasn't able to find anything. I will admit it might be hard with the band name to locate suitable material, if someone finds something obvious I missed please ping me so I can retract the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Mic Mag ~ Magazine is also a record label. It appears to have been a small publication at first and is not also a label ~ If a label is writing articles then I'm not sure if it can really be reliable anymore Yes Article is quite short but it is about the band ~ Partial
Broadway World ~ I wasn't able to figure out if this outlet was independent or just a PR outlet with a few legit reviews mixed in. ~ Came out one day before the Mic Mag article and both read very promotional Yes Article is about the band ~ Partial
Audio Angest ? Site is really just one man Ian Roth ? Site is hosted on substack and the article came out on the same day as the Broadway World article Yes Article is about the band ? Unknown
buzz-music.com ~ Not sure if everything on the site is user submitted or influenced No Site appears to just let you submit info about your band Yes Article is about the band ✘ No
punkrocks.co.uk ~ No editorial policy page, articles mostly appear to be authored by one person Oscar Manners ~ Lack of editorial structure makes it hard to figure out if this is reliable. Also this article was released on the same day as all the others ~ Article is quite short compared to the others, coverage is only about them but there isn't much there/ ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; they don't yet meet the notability criteria. Maybe it's just too soon, but the sources that currently exist are dodgy. JSFarman (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've written a few articles on bands over time, and I'm afraid this one is not yet what I'd want to see for notability, e.g., a few profiles in mainstream newspapers. honestly i thought this article was going to be about drinking beer in the shower, but i checked out the music while searching, its quality pop punk.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just not enough sourcing as shown by the source table above, and I can't find much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. An ATD can be considered editorially. Star Mississippi 03:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC Atom[edit]

BASIC Atom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic has little to no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The article is an unreferenced stub that has changed little since it was created more than a decade ago. A search turned up Hellebuyck, Chuck (2008). Programming The Basic Atom Microcontroller. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4404-7976-2., which is a self-published book, and Kelemen, Michal; et al. (2014). "Rapid Control Prototyping of Embedded Systems Based on Microcontroller". Procedia Engineering. 96: 215–220. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.146. which is a short description in a small, defunct engineering journal. I suggest we delete. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 01:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree "Physical computing" book looks like a good source. However, while it's quite likely the programming author has some expertise, there's significant problems with WP:IS, as the Nuts and Volts articles direct readers to buy the Basic Atom through his own website and buy his self published book on the topic. Since most of the sources mention the ATOM in direct comparison to the BASIC Stamp, perhaps readers would be best served by merging any content to there? 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 04:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree overall and this probably is marginal. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE I could see a partial to BASIC Stamp since the company doesn't have an article either and I'm not sure it should... Hm. Skynxnex (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling with WP:GNG, there was a giveaway on hackaday for context. Unsure of a WP:ATD, is there a List of Microcontrollers or something like that? IgelRM (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Greenwood Township, Franklin County, Kansas. Complex/Rational 17:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood, Kansas[edit]

Greenwood, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is much the same situation as Appanoose, Kansas: a short-lived post office in the mid-1800s, replaced by a township. The situation is complicated by a flood of false Ghits, as there is also a Greenwood County in the eastern part of the state, and the community center mentioned is actually over near/in Kansas City. The church is there, though, with its cemetery, and that's all there is to the place presently. Again, there is no evidence for anything otehr than a vague locale. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia is A–Z, and can easily be checked by direct access without worrying about false positives. No Greenwood is there except the county. The only Greenwoods known to the USGS in 1898 are:

    Greenwood; village in Quincy Township, Greenwood County.

    Greenwood; station on St. Louis and San Francisco Railway, in Twin Grove Township, Greenwood County; altitude, 991 feet.

    Greenwood; southeast county […]

    Greenwood; township in Franklin County; area, 30 square miles; population, 712.

    Greenwood; township in Phllips County; area, 36 square miles; population, 303.

    — Gannett 1898, pp. 101–102
    I can find no Greenwood other than the township in Franklin in the history books. Andreas 1883 only has the township (on p.621), for example. Presumably people will want to disambiguate Greenwood County, Kansas, Greenwood Township, Phillips County, Kansas, and Greenwood Township, Franklin County, Kansas.

    Once again we are victim of the "A post office implies a village/town; so a defunct post office with no town implies a ghost town." double fallacy on the parts of people who don't know how post offices and townships worked. There is zero evidence beyond what the one source actually says, which is that this is a post office that used to be run by the Sac and Fox Agency Stage Company. Another source confirms that it was run by postmaster Elijah S. Buckner and changed names in 1861.

    Finally, returning to Andreas 1883, p. 621 we find that the Sac and Fox reservation in Franklin County was moved to Osage County in 1863, which is why the post office changed, so that Greenwood Township, Franklin County, Kansas could be settled in the reservation's place in 1863 and organized in 1865.

    It's an old Indian agency post office, that got renamed per the Greenwood Township. Ironically, Sac and Fox#History skips over Kansas in the 1850s and 1860s entirely without a mention, and goes straight to Iowa.

    Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Fonterra. Given the disruption during the AFD, I will E/C the redirect Star Mississippi 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probiotic Probio DR10[edit]

Probiotic Probio DR10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this product is covered in scientific papers, this does not indicate its notability. In line with the guidelines at WP:PRODUCTS an article about a product should have significant coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability. A search for specifically "Probiotic Probio DR10" or for the shorter phrase "Probio DR10" returns no results from either google books or google scholar. DR10 is covered, as cited, in research papers, but this coverage is not significant. Therefore I propose that the article be turned into a redirect either to the company that created the product Fonterra or to the more general article probiotic. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support redirect to manufacturer article. Article feels fishy, reads like a promotional leaflet. AfD tak removed this morning without comment. Take a look at the edit history. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that as well. It is also interesting that the IP address that attempted the deletion locates to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia and the main editor of the page has "Malaysian" in their user name. In no way proof, but it is an interesting coincidence. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeess, interesting... --Ouro (blah blah) 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've also had to warn the editor about removing the AfD tag as well. Not showing a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to company page. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this has been lifted from a promotional press-release somewhere. Elemimele (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my instinct as well but I have done several searches looking for copyvios and came up empty. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A New Day Cambodia[edit]

A New Day Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find extensive indepth coverage, a mere 5 gnews hits which are mainly small mentions. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Sakr[edit]

Ziad Sakr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was turned down two times in page review and then put to mainspace anyways by the article's creator. Ziad as a squash player has no significant coverage specific to them; beside passing mentions in other articles. They are currently ranked 182 by the PSA (squash tour), which is also not a notable ranking. Their current rankings mean they are limited in the tournaments they may enter. On the PSA website on Ziad Sakr's which lists news and video specific to the player no listings are specific to Ziad Sakr. On the Wiki page there listed notable win in 2012 is the British Open which was for the U-13 category. A junior tournament win of that caliber while impressive is not enough to meet notability requirements. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also a concerned about the possibility that this page was written for WP:PROMOTIONAL purposes and that we have a strong WP:COI with this being the users only created article and them mentioning they have "interviewed" Ziad Sakr on my Talk Page, so therefore everything on the page is correct. No reference is given to this interview on Ziad Sakr's page. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment on the talk page after the article creation of, "Hey, what steps need to be taken here for the page to be indexed?" makes me also believe this article may have been created for promotional purposes. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Keep -Thank you for your comments; I appreciate the time you are taking to address them. Let's begin by addressing your concerns. The British Junior Open stands as one of the biggest and most prestigious tournaments in squash juniors' careers. Winning it is akin to securing a world championship. Moreover, this individual has clinched multiple significant international titles, including the Arabian Championship three times with the Egyptian national team and the 17th national championship for Trinity College. Since squash lacks a standardized league, the College Squash National Championship holds immense importance. For aspiring professional squash players, winning it is a pivotal goal, attracting sponsors and providing an advantage for promoters to grant access to wild cards and satellite tournaments in the professional circuit, a crucial step in starting a professional career.

Regarding the second point, Ziad Sakr moved from 800 to 182 in the rankings within a year. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that this is not notable. Achieving such a feat—climbing over 500 places in under 12 months at the beginning of a professional squash career—is a commendable and significant accomplishment. Ziad now qualifies to compete in major tournaments, and within the squash community, he is well-known. After conducting an interview with him, I am convinced he deserves to have a Wikipedia page so more people can learn about his achievements.

This has nothing to do with promotion, as you said. I am trying to give him the recognition he deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namexre (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find citations for showing specific in depth coverage of Ziad Sakr to meet the WP:Notability_(sports) standards such as for the tournaments you mentioned?
Trinity College's domination of the national title for two decades is a good example where significant converge exists for an article. While being apart of a team that wins the championship is impressive there is not significant coverage specific to Ziad. As an example for a college player (and pro) that met significant coverage is Youssef Ibrahim. He played for Princeton (and the PSA) and received significant coverage while still playing for Princeton and therefore meets the requirements for a page.
Do you have a link to the interview you conducted of Ziad?
Ziad actually is not qualified at his rank of 182 to enter major tournaments. Are you familiar with the PSA tournament requirements? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you for responding. I already provided articles, link to the interview above and citations for every tournament, including the national championship title and All-American title. from the source you shared WP:Notability_(sports). It says the following about individual seasons below:
  • A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable.
  • A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable
The article provides coverage and citations for the college national championship in 2018 and the All-American title, which meet some of the criteria in the link you mentioned. From my point of view, is well sourced for every achievement, but I am not sure how much important coverage you are suggesting. In fact, it is providing more coverage and citations for the person you mentioned.
I understand your point, and for sure, Youssef's has significant PSA coverage. I can't disagree on that. but I am also not fully on the same page, if you don't mind. according to Wikepdia Notability, and the link you sent Ziad has his own coverage and pages and is more notable from my point of view than this person, for instance, Matías Knudsen. Regarding Ziad's own articles, please find this link here [5] and many more that I am mentioning. The PSA itself made the title of an article about his return after 7 years on tour here [6]. and many more which is cited in the article.
Namexre (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated to your earlier response on my take page, "Those are notability of the individual seasons being notable and having their own page. Notability is not inherited to the the individuals on the team for a noatable season."
Your first reference from Trinty College's own article to me is hard to make a case for significant coverage as it is written by the College themself for their own promotion. If the article was from an independent news site, etc. then it would meet the significant coverage threshold.
Your second link only has a passing mention of Ziad with two lines, "The 23-year-old last feature on the PSA Tour in 2016, when he played in the Arab Federation Open. Following an extended break away, including a four-year stint at Trinity College in the United States, Sakr returned to the Tour in Santa Fe this week." KeepItGoingForward (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -You haven't gotten back to me in regards to the page I mentioned for Matias Knudsen above. Respectfully, I feel there is inconsistency here in terms of what you consider notable and not. As you mentioned on your page, Matias is higher in ranking than Ziad #119 vs #182. But in reality, as I mentioned, being ranked #119 vs #182 is not a big difference at all. So your case here kindly, is not about notability and coverage anymore; it is about ranking ? I am just a bit confused and trying to understand the facts you are proposing. Not coming hard on anyone specifically, our goal is to give equal recognition to the athletes who deserve it, but as you know, creating a page takes a lot of time and I feel you came very hard on the page I created by directly asking for it to be deleted while others are already approved as Matias and similar pages don't have the same coverage and citation as this page for Ziad.Namexre (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also disagree with the fact that the article was written by the college for their own promotion. The college will not pick anyone to provide such coverage. They pick their elite athletes to do so. So respectfully, I disagree here with you. Because If this is the case, I could say the same thing about almost half of wikipedia athletes Namexre (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, KeepItGoingForward please explain to me your reasoning here I saw you recently edit a page Vikram Malhotrathat has zero citations, and you didn't list it for deletion as you did for this page. You are differentiating between article pages, which makes me question a lot of things here. Also, can you explain to me why this page was approved? Low Wee Nee ? it has no citations; she went to Trinity College and also won the national championship, but with fewer achievements. She didn't make it to major international tournaments such as the British Junior Open and the Arab Championship, as did Ziad. Again, I am trying to understand your reasoning behind the word "notability.". because every citation I made for this article, you referred to it as "promotional," which is very far from it Namexre (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KeepItGoingForwardYou are violating Wikepdia rules Wikipedia:Don't restore removed commentsby constantly restoring the comments on the Ziad Sakr page while the editor keeps removing it. This is vandalism, and I feel you are trying to destroy the page without any reasoning. Namexre (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN RAJU@WcquidditchPlease help here. Thanks Namexre (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about the talk page? Restoring the history and the wikiproject headers? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a point of note, I have not restored any comments on your talk page as per the policy on WP:Don't restore removed comments. I have posted notices on it though.
I am sorry to hear that you feel that the AfD process is happening without reason. Maybe let's wait for some other editors to weigh in on the process for a fresh perspective for both of us? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KeepItGoingForwardRespectfully, you did restore comments on the Ziad Sakr talk article, as I mentioned in my comments above, and you can easily check the history of edits. And you did that over 2 times. The last restoration was made by you at 06:52 on January 12, 2024 Namexre (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You never got back to me regarding your reasoning for editing/creating the pages I mentioned above, which have no citations but were approved. I would like to hear your reasoning behind differentiating between pages and why you are coming down hard on this particular page. Namexre (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would also like to note that the British junior open title is notable, and as mentioned on their official website and Wikepeida page, The British Junior Open squash championship is considered the second most prestigious junior open squash championship after the World Junior Squash Championships. It is one of the five Tier 2 events in the WSF World Junior Squash Circuit. So to get to your point,@KeepItGoingForward winning such a title is prestigious and considered notable, which makes this person, Ziad Sakr, a notable achievement. This is one of many achievements that are mentioned on his page. Namexre (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and here it is as well on the England squash official website: https://www.englandsquash.com/competitions/junior/major-competitions Namexre (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a serious accomplishment when he won the under 13 division; however, it does not make it Ziad notable for a wiki article, as there is no significant coverage attached to Ziad winning the tournament. To add, basically all the links in the Ziad article at the moment are about the Trinity Squash team as a whole and not Ziad specifically or have issues as discussed above. If you can find multiple significant coverage specific to Ziad then the article can be kept otherwise notability is in question. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KeepItGoingForwardThere are already plenty of articles that talk about Ziad that are referenced and cited. I guess that brings you back to the point you have never answered. Your consideration of notability is different from one page to another. Consider these pages, which are also in squash space. They lack much more references and citations. In fact, you edited couple of them before and one or two of these page has zero articles or references. I am looking forward to hearing your honest opinion in regards of why you are working so hard to delete this particular page which meets all notability criteria and why you are leaving others that are not. You are in particular focusing on Egyptian players, which I noticed from your previous edits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matías_Knudsen why he is approved ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Malhotra - why is this page approved
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Wee_Nee - it has no citations; she went to Trinity College and also won the national championship, but with fewer achievements than Ziad
Kush Kumar - no achievements whatsoever and this page stating he won "9 times junior national champion" ???? that is absolutely not true, no reference supporting this and how this came through and got approved.
Thoboki Mohohlo - no citations, no achievements
I need your honest opinion because you keep running away from answering these questions. Ziad's page is well cited, notable achievements, supporting articles. So really not sure how's your arguments is valid. The pages above, you edited them before Namexre (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the five pages you quoted have any edits from me.
I believe I was already clear above at this point. I will leave it to others to decide. The basic criteria is, "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." as per WP:Notability_(sports) A news release by the Trinity College the College he plays for and is likely funding him through a scholarship, is not a secondary source or independent of the subject. When one looks at the citations there are none that are all independent, secondary, and non-trivial in their focus on Ziad Sakr. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still run away from answering my question. That is not answering why the other pages are not subject to deletion, given they have ZERO achievements or articles talking about them. @KeepItGoingForward You actually edited Vikram malhotra's page. You can simply go to the page history, and you can see it. The last edit you made was 6 days ago. It is that simple. Again, I kept saying it multiple times Ziad Sakr citations are not just scholarship coverage. There are 21 citations and an interview that talks about him. You are simply targeting the page; it is very obvious you don't want to answer my questions or even admit you edited the page. Simply check the history for the page I mentioned. I will appreciate if our conversation can have full transparency here Namexre (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you would assume good faith and not do personal attacks. You are right I did edit Vikram Malhotra page to add an Unreferenced tag which adds to the top of the page, "This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I was pointing out an issue with the article. At the moment Vikram Malhotra's page does not show notability and if you believe that is still true after a search you can start a process for deleting the page. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting we really need to hear from more than 2 editors on this situation. Just a reminder that each edito can cast a single bolded "vote" so please do not post votes repeatedly. I might come back and hat some of these tangent discussions. I think they would discourage editors from joining in the conversation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I looked at the sources. KeepItGoingForward's assessment is correct, they do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Most are routine match coverage that only mention Sakr in passing or statistics. The exceptions are [31] which is not independent, and [32], which, while a little bit more than a passing mention, is still routine sports coverage and not enough to meet our notability guidelines. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Jfire (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage found for this person; sourcing now in the article is the college's website or various other sports sites, none of which are RS or non-primary. Low ranked athletes rarely get coverage and there are no news articles about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV and is not notable in their sport. As noted by others only passing mentions in most sources that matter. TarnishedPathtalk 14:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids on Thrace (1025–1032)[edit]

Raids on Thrace (1025–1032) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:
Comments Source
Fails SIGCOV, generally discusses events in the time from but nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. Metcalfe, Alex (2014-03-11). Muslims of Medieval Italy. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-8843-2.
Fails SIGCOV, generally discusses events in the time from but nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Barbera, Henry. The Military Factor in Social Change Vol. 2. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-3781-1.
Fails SIGCOV, generally discusses events in the time from but nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Barbera, Henry (1994). Medieval Sicily: The First Absolute State. Legas. ISBN 978-1-881901-05-1.
Ping me if WP:THREE with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth about are found. No objection to a consensus redirect, but only properly sourced material should be merged.

 // Timothy :: talk  03:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, plus POV problem. It's barely an identifiable event: it's just a passing mention of raids in some sources. I believe I looked into this particular topic previously when another editor tried to publish a draft about it that was repeatedly declined for publication for failing WP:GNG (I believe it was Draft:Zirid campaign in Illyria, now deleted). After trying to improve and expand it, I came to the same conclusion then too. One of many military history stubs out there that often seem to be created for the sake of having as many supposed "victories" as possible associated with a particular dynasty/state on Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i would like to adress this, I actually wasent aware of the deleted page Zirid campaign in Illyria i found a source about the zirids raiding crete and corfu, but then i did some more reasearch for it, and found more sources to prove the event happend, not only that, i dont understand why its been nominated for deletion cause it has been reviewed fine i dont see the problem in it.
ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article spins statements out of proportion to reality. There was a Byzantine attempt to invade Sicily in 1025, and subsequent raids against Byzantine territories, the last of which was in 1032, but that does not mean that between 1025 and 1032, there was a campaign of raids on Thrace, as the article implies. This is nonsense: Skylitzes e.g. mentions only a raid against the Cyclades under Constantine VIII, and then of "Saracens coasting off Illyricum [i.e., the Western Balkans] as far as Corfu" in 1032. That's about it. And having Constantine VIII's death mentioned in the infobox is also an implication that he died in the course or as a consequence of the campaign, which is double nonsense. These events are fairly isolated, and might be better treated in the context of a broader article on Byzantine attempts to reconquer Sicily or similar broader topics. Constantine ✍ 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Calpe#History. seems to have slightly more consensus than Barbary slave trade. That can be fine tuned when the merge is performed as target is not an admin decision Star Mississippi 03:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Calpe (1637)[edit]

Sack of Calpe (1637) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Sources in article and found in before are not WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:
Comments Source
Fails SIGCOV. Article event took place in 1637, book covers 1735-1830, has one sentence mention 1. Bekkaoui, K. (2010-11-24). White Women Captives in North Africa: Narratives of Enslavement, 1735-1830. Springer. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-230-29449-3.
Fails SIGCOV, a one sentence mention 2. ^ Street, Lucie (1986). An Uncommon Sailor: A Portrait of Admiral Sir William Penn, English Naval Supremacy. Kensal Press. ISBN 978-0-946041-47-3.
Fails SIGCOV, a one sentence mention 3. ^ Friedman, Ellen G. (1983). Spanish Captives in North Africa in the Early Modern Age. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-09380-8.
Fails SIGCOV, again a mention, nothing about the event 4. ^ Hershenzon, Daniel (2018-08-01). The Captive Sea: Slavery, Communication, and Commerce in Early Modern Spain and the Mediterranean. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-9536-8.
Ping me if WP:THREE with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth about the event are found. No objection to a consensus redirect, but only properly sourced material should be merged.  // Timothy :: talk  03:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First i would like to adress these sources
[1]: "In the Same year the Algerians raided the Spanish Village of Calpe taking 315 Captives mostly women and children.
(this has no doubt a connection the event as it says the same year as Raid on Ceriale and Borghetto, which i made aswell (they both happend in 1637)
[2]: "In 1637, Calpe, The coasts of Valencia was razed to the group by corsairs" now sure, you might say there is no saying of Algerians, but its most likely [[Corsairs of Algiers|Algerian Corsairs], we also see help from the moors which helps make this more clear.
[3]: "Calpe in Valencia was Attacked by Algerian Corsairs" here we see a clear taking of algerian corsairs not only, that in the August of 1637, the Viceroy of Valencia found out about the raid on calpe.
[4]: i admit, here we only have one small mention of the raid, but it gives a deciption of what type of ship was used 'Galleys' that is, but i would understand the removal of this.
ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Calpe#History. The enslavement of 315 Spaniards ought to be a significant event, but we have so little detail or background in this article that it cannot be kept as a free-standing article, unless expanded to provide context or merged with an article on Algerian slave-raiding in Spain (or Europe). However merging is a viable option. At an earlier date the village had a population of only 350 people, so that the effect must have been to reduce its size considerably. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another possible merge/redirect target is Barbary slave trade. —Srnec (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paschim Banga Vigyan Mancha[edit]

Paschim Banga Vigyan Mancha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft but brought back into mainspace by the creator, this article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in Bengali or other languages I can’t access, but on present showing it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 09:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Atanasov (gymnast)[edit]

Nikolay Atanasov (gymnast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography of an Olympic athlete was created by Lugnuts under earlier sports notability guidelines, but no longer satisfies Olympic notability because the subject did not receive a medal. It does not satisfy general notability because it does not describe what third parties have written. The only references are two database entries.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Eyama[edit]

Miguel Eyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced footballer BLP which fails WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions of the subject (2018, 2020, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No coverage from third party sources, career restricted to local league only with no further information available. Svartner (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Munchkin#Welfare concerns or another section thereof Star Mississippi 03:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bambino cat[edit]

Bambino cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability (breeds) requires recognition from a major registry which the Bambino currently lacks (it's only experimental). There are many Munchkin derived breeds and I do not believe that they meet notability without the recognition as there's nothing special about them, other issues in the article include poor sources such as generic pet care websites and many of the references are about the Munchkin itself (as health issues and legal issues relate to the breed) To add on to notability issues the breed doesn't even seem to be mentioned on TICA's website. Have mentioned deletion on Wikiproject Cats too. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The above user is an AFD spammer with non-policy based arguments. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Spammer” is an insult that should probably be avoided. My comment stands. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments that do not touch upon policy at all, but instead are in breach of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, may "stand" but they don't carry much weight when the discussion is closed. You seem to misunderstand or to not have read many policies. Geschichte (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Munchkin and include a short section about derivatives there. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added the mention of the couple being warned to stop breeding it in Munchkin#Welfare concerns and have added details about the derivatives to the article as well. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on my above !vote, this article suffers from sourcing issues, and WikiProject Cats strongly recommends only having articles for cat breeds fully acknowledged by a major cat registry. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Joon-soo[edit]

Yoon Joon-soo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NSPORT; in Korean, when searched there are no significant articles covering their career. Few games on record. toobigtokale (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. However if an editor is aware of a way to keep it current and helpful in a manner complementary to the existing seasonal ones, happy to provide it as a draft. Star Mississippi 03:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR drivers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of NASCAR drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:V and possibly WP:BLP. In general, lists of "current" things are of dubious notability, because they will, in all likelihood, become empty at some point in the future (see the recent USFL AfD, for example).

This is a largely unreferenced list of living people which is terminally out of date. Some of the sublists haven't been updated since 2015. The page is a collection of career statistics which lack context, and it's unclear how the numbers are derived (e.g. do they include stats from multiple NASCAR series?) They may even be original calculations. Even if the list were well-referenced and updated regularly, it's unclear why the career statistics of this WP:CROSSCAT of drivers (i.e. currently active in any NASCAR series) are notable.

Actually current and verifiable information about the current roster of NASCAR drivers can be found on the per-season pages, such as 2023 NASCAR Cup Series. Because these pages refer to specific years, we can be assured that notability will persist indefinitely.

No consensus to delete last summer, but no compelling arguments to keep, either. pburka (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just one long, long, long list, with only one entry having a source. — Maile (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep: needs to trim off some trivia columns and a big update, but is otherwise a valid list concept. See List of Major League Baseball players (A), which is also a very long list of people from a specific league that contains notable biographical info. I don't know if the nominated article needs a WP:TNT or just some love. Wizmut (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there could be a legitimate list with this title, but I do believe this is a case of TNT. The baseball list you linked isn't limited to active players and isn't providing detailed career statistics. That's the right way to do it. While this page purports to be a "list of NASCAR drivers", it's more accurately an (out of date) "list of career achievements of current NASCAR drivers". pburka (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RegalZ8790 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_19&oldid=1199868492"